The rhetoric before these Commonwealth Games from those in the know was cautionary. Don't expect the gold rush of Delhi, they warned. England, riding the wave of the London Olympics, have us in their sight.

On that count, at least, they were right. What ensued was Australia's worst overall performance since 1986, the first time since they were last in Scotland that year that top spot on the medal table has been relinquished. England once again are kings of the old Empire.

What will follow is introspection and inquiry, although not high alarm. Glasgow was the first Games in 64 years without a weightlifting gold medal, the worst ever outing given the number of events by a gymnastics team, the least successful triathlon performance ever and the poorest wrestling showing since 1970. Even in athletics, beset by controversy, Australia's yielding of eight gold medals was the most modest return since Edmonton in 1978.

Medal counts, Australia's chef de mission Steve Moneghetti consistently said over the previous 11 days, aren't the be all and end all, just numbers on a piece of paper . Yet under the federal government's aspirational post-London funding policy, they're just about everything.

Advertisement

It is why the sporting teams that bombed out in Glasgow will be under the microscope in the near future.

"We're pretty happy with the overall performance of athletes generally, but certainly there are some sports in an evaluation sense will look back and certainly dive into a bit of detail," said Australian Institute of Sport chief executive Matt Favier.

Illustration: Matt Golding

"With some sports we'll be having conversations with them around their performance here, and what does that indicate for us as a nation with regards to Rio."

Favier, whose agency is charged with divvying up $120 million in high performance funding to sports, says Australia's overall medal count fell at the mid point of their expectations; the gold medal haul at the lower to mid range.

He was buoyed by Australia's performance in shooting, track cycling, boxing and the improvement since London in swimming, and not shocked by overall demotion at the hands of England,

"It's not unexpected," Favier said. "We always imagined that on the back of London, England and certainly Scotland would be a lot stronger than they have been in recent times. It's been one of the most competitive Games of recent times.

"We're confident that for 2018, and on the back of further progress under the 'Winning Edge' strategy, that we'll reclaim the No.1 position and we certainly expect those sports that have performed below expectations here we'll work very closely with them to address it.

"We've also got to be careful we don't start jumping at shadows here. In some cases there are some injuries that you do need to consider. There are some considerations, however, about what went wrong and we will certainly evaluate that with those sports."

&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;nbsp;

The medal count will not be the only subject of post-Glasgow talks with sports. Other issues that confronted the Australian team here over the past fortnight - notably the Eric Hollingsworth fiasco in athletics and squash player Zac Alexander's last-minute exile from the team - will also be on the agenda.

"We would want some assurances that that won't happen again," Favier said of the spat between Hollingsworth and Sally Pearson that led to the track and field head coach's sacking.

"Governance cuts across all sports and certainly in the case around athletics in particular, and what has happened over the last week, is an example of a thing that we need to avoid in the future."

The next round of high performance funding - the lifeblood of amateur sports not propped up by huge television deals - will not be finalised until June 2015. Its allocation will depend principally on prospects for the next Olympics, and the report card from the Commonwealth Games will be key in determining where the money is heading.

Favier admits, though, that simply throwing more cash at sports that performed well in Glasgow, and stripping money off those that didn't, is not necessarily the way forward.

"I think some sports would rightly say 'Well, we don't have the right amount of resources to be able to generate a better better performance than we've done'," he said. "And we need to acknowledge that as well."

NOW FOR THE GAMES RECKONING

How the sports performed against Australian Sports Commission medal targets: medal targets in parenthesis:

These polls are not scientific and reflect the opinion only of visitors who have chosen to participate.

224 comments

Why do we always send such a huge team? At the last Olympics we had almost as many athletes as the U.S. - for so little return. Not only is it embarrassing but its hugely exorbitant. Don't we have more pressing problems in need of taxpayer funding?

Commenter

Omni

Location

Date and time

August 03, 2014, 10:56PM

It's all Abbott's fault.....

Commenter

n720ute

Location

North Coast NSW

Date and time

August 04, 2014, 6:54AM

I agree completely. I couldn't believe the number of atletes when the team was announced - more than 400. I'll say it again: FOUR HUNDRED!!!! What did they all do, and more important, who paid for all this? Everything about these mass sporting events - the olympics, the commonwealth games and world cup soccer, to name but three, has got completely out of proportion with budgets the size of the GDP of small counties. One solution would be to stop all Government funding (including closing that self-indulgent white elephant, the Institute of Sport) and let the athletes (and especially the 'administrators') try to raise their own money by going back to having lamington drives, sausage sizzles and chocolate wheels.

Commenter

Florence

Location

Firenze

Date and time

August 04, 2014, 7:11AM

There is nothing embarrassing about not winning at international sporting events. The embarrassment lies in boasting that you are going to blitz the field but then you don't. What is the purpose of all this boasting?

Commenter

Tina

Location

Date and time

August 04, 2014, 7:37AM

Omni - I agree. A large team justifiably raises national expectations of success. If we reduced the size of the team then maybe we could better target the available funding. Maybe we need to specialise in a few sports where we are strong, rather than an ineffective broadbrush approach. While you could argue the merits of a different approach, the bottom line is that success is largely measured on the gold medal tally. As in most sporting competitions, coming first is all that people care about.

Commenter

Flanders

Location

Date and time

August 04, 2014, 7:59AM

Agree with Omni, big plus one!

Commenter

seriously

Location

Date and time

August 04, 2014, 8:10AM

@n720ute - I know! I just farted it after a meat pie, i think it's all Abbott's fault.

Commenter

Gerson

Location

Sydney

Date and time

August 04, 2014, 8:32AM

Just as long as they "had some fun" there (in the words of Leisel Jones before the last Olympics).

Commenter

LX

Location

Melb

Date and time

August 04, 2014, 8:48AM

Australians also seem to think they have a God given right to win every single medal. Then when they don't they conduct a 'review'. How about for once accepting that the people who won may have performed better. Personally I cringe at the Australian jinogism over what is a third rate competition.

Commenter

Julie

Location

Sydney

Date and time

August 04, 2014, 9:00AM

Spot on, there should not be any funding for sport. What about funding struggling Australian rock musos?

4 Aug England expects to continue its medal success at the Rio Olympics and Gold Coast Commonwealth Games and will use the example of Australia's decline post-Sydney in 2000 to push for funding to be maintained.

4 Aug The theme of this goodbye was to be 'A typical night in Glasgow', minus the curry sauce. A proud city duly came out to celebrate what has been anything but a typical 11 days on the banks of the River Clyde.